ATR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

+

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE | AFSN/SSAN ~
AR
PERSONAL APPEARANCE X RECORD REVIEW _
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OK ORGANIZATION mos ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

pent co cee neces MEMEBERS SITTING VOTH
x
Lee 4 - x7 .
x
x
x
ISSUES INDEX NUMBER . AE FOSCR TRIER ECHR HOARD
A92,37, A453 A750 1 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOART
y | APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 | LETTER OF NOTIFICATION ~ "|
HEARING DATE CASE NUMBER ~ ~~ 4 | BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE ~ |
02-10-02 FD2002-0181 COUNSEL'S RELEASF. TO TIE BOARD
ADLTMIOMAL FXHIBITS SUBMITTEIGAT ‘TIME OF
PERSONAL APTBARANCE
“— TAPE RECORDING OF FERHGNAL APPERANCE HEARING °

 

 

 

 

   

   
  

f 2 ELONAL

  

 

 
 

 

 

Case heard at Washingten, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the ripht to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to
submit an application to the AFBCMR.

 

 

   

 

 

§AT/MIBR SECRETARY OF THE AIR PORCE PERSONNEI. COUNCIL
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3°" FLOOR

 

 

 

ANDREWS AFR, MID 20762-7002 7
i we! ae
Previous edition will be used.

 

 

AFHO FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2)

5
“
CASE NUMBER

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE | pyo992-0181

GENERAL. The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board but declined to
exercise this right.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge is denied.

The Board finds the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, and
after a thorough review of the record, the Board was unable to identify any.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for a pattern of misconduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. She
had four Letters of Reprimand, a Record of Individual Counseling, an Article 15, a vacation of suspended
punishment, and an Unfavorable Information File. Her misconduct included nine instances failure to report
to work on time, two instances of wearing an unauthorized tongue ring, dercliction of duty, failed room
inspection and dress and appearance violations, and displaying unprofessional behavior. These offenses
occurred over a 10-month period and although member was counseled repeatedly and given numerous
opportunities to improve and change her negative behavior, she was unable or unwilling to do so. At the
time of the discharge, applicant submitted a statement requesting retention. The Board found applicant’s
repeated misconduct was a significant departure from the standards expected of all airmen, therefore, no
inequity or impropriety was found in her discharge in the course of the records review.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the
discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings the board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for
upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment:
Examiner's Brief
FD2002-0181
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
ANDREWS AFB, MD

(Former AB} (HGH AMN)

1. MATTER UNDER REVIEW: Appl rec’d a GEN Diech fr USAF 02/01/03 UP AFI 36-3208,

para 5.50.2 (Masconduct - Patter of Misconduct Prejudicial to Good Order and
Discipline). Appeals for Honorable Disch. —

2. BACKGROUND:

a. DOB: 78/02/09. Enimt Age: 22 4/12. Disch Age: 23 10/12, Educ: HS DIPL
. AFOT: N/A. A-69, E-54, G-48, M-39, PAFSC: 3M031 - Services Apprentice.
DAS: 00/10/13.

b. Prior Sv: (1) AFRes 00/06/27 - 00/07/05 (9 Days) (Inactive).

3, SERVICE UNDER REVIEW:

a. Enld as AMN 00/07/06 for 6 yrs, Svd: 1 Yr 5 Mos 28 Das, all AMS.
b. Grade Statua: AB - 01/30/20 (Vacation of Article 15, 01/09/20).
c. Time Lost: None.

ad. Art 15's: (1) 01/09/20, Vacation, Hickam AFB, HI, Article 8&6. You,
did, on or about.19 Aug 2001, without authority, fail
to go at the time prescribed to your appointed place of
duty, to wit: Hale Aina Dining Facility, Building 1860.
Reduction to the grade of AB. (Appeal denied).
(No mitigation).

(2) 01/03/20, Hickam AFB, HI, Article 92. You, did, on or
about 3 Mar 2001, violate a lawful general regulation,
to wit: Table 2.5, Item 7, Air Force Instruction 36-
2903, Dress and Pergonal Appearance of Air Force
Personnel, dated 8 June 1998, by wrongfully attaching a
metal object through your tongue. Suspended reduction
to the grade of AB, 15 days extra duty, anda
reprimand. (No appeal). (No mitigation).

e, Additional: LOR, 2 MAY 01 - Dereliction of duty.
LOR, § FEB 01 - Failure to obey a lawful regulation.
LOR, 22 Jan 01 - Failure to meet dregs and appearance
standards, and failed dorm inspection.
RIC, 28 DEC 00 - Failure to report for duty on time.
LOR, 7 NOV 90 - Failure to report for duty on time.

fF. CM: none,
FD2002-0181

Gg. Record of 8V: None.

(Discharged from Hickam AFB)

h, Awards & Decs: APTR.

i. Stmt of Sv: TMs: (1) ¥r (6) Mos (7} Das
TAMS: (1) Yr (5) Mog (28) Das

4. BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW: Appln (DD Fm 293) dtd 02/01/22.
(Change Discharge to Honorable)

NO ISSUES SUBMITTED.

ATCH
None

02/08/07 fer
£2002 - 01 @)

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
PACIFIC AIR FORCES

 

17 Dee O1

MEMORANDUM FOR 15 ABW/CC ar’ \
nade
FROM: 15 ABW/JA

SUBJECT: Administrative Discharge Legal Review ~ AB squinemenaapilliio,

1. ISSUE: On 7 Dec 01, QR 15 SVS Commander, recommended that
AB ERS (< administratively discharged from the United States Air Force for a
pattern of misconduct, Authority for this action is AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and
Separations, and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Chapter 5, paragraph
5.50.2. Lt elias recommends a General discharge characterization, without Probation and
Rehabilitation (P&R). SR ass not entitled to an administrative discharge board hearing.

2. OPTIONS: As the separation authority, you may:
a. Direct retention of AM@@ARAIAM. if her retention is in the best interest of the Air Force; or
b. Direct separation with an Honorable characterization, with or without P&R; or
c. Direct separation with a General characterization, with or without P&R; or

d. Direct separation with a Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTIIC), with or
without PAR; or

c. Direct an administrative discharge board to convene. Due to the length of service,
member is not entitled to a discharge board unless a UOTHC is recommended. If convened, the
discharge board will determine whether a basis for discharge exists, an appropriate discharge
characterization, and if P&R is appropriate.

3. FACTS: T have reviewed the proposed separation action against QR, and find it
procedurally and legally sufficient to support separation, subject to insertion of her medical
examination in the record.

a. GOVERNMENT’S CASE: ‘This discharge action is based on gagMARM® s pattern of
misconduct, which began while she was assigned to the 15 Services Squadron. Misconduct from
her military record is as follows:
MOLO02-Of F)

On 15 Oct 00, 17 Oct 00, 18 Oct 00, 27 Oct 00, 3 Nov 00, and 6 Nov 00, she failed to report
for duty at the prescribed time. For these offenses, she received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR),
dated 7 Nov 00.

On 19 Dec 00, she failed to report for duty at the prescribed time. For this offense, she was
verbally counseled.

On 28 Dec 00, she failed to report for duty at the prescribed time. For this offense, she
received a Record of Individual Counseling (RIC), dated 28 Dec 00.

On 16 Jan 01, she failed a dorm inspection and failed to meet minimum dress and appearance
standards. For these offenses, she received a LOR, dated 22 Jan 01.

On 8 Feb 01, she failed to obey a direct order and violated a lawful general regulation by
wrongfully attaching a metal object through her tongue. Por this offense, she reecived a LOR,
dated & Feb O1.

On 26 Feb 01, duc to prior misconduct, an Unfavorable Information File (UIP) was
established.

On 3 Mar 01, she violated a Jawful gencral regulation by wrongfully attaching a metal object
through her tongue. For this offense, she received an Article 15, dated 20 Mar 01, She received
punishment consisting of a suspended reduction to E-1 (Aimman Basic), 15 days extra duty, and a
Teprimand.

On 7 Apr 01, she displayed unprofessional behavior. For this offense, she was verbally
counseled.

On 9 and 10 Apr 2001, she was derelict in her duties. For these offenses, she received a
LOR, dated 2 May 01.

On 19 Aug 01, she failed to report for duty at the prescribed time. For this offense, her
suspended reduction was vacated, dated 20 Sep 01. Jn addition, she also reccived an Article 15,
dated 20 Sep O1. She received punishment consisting of a suspended forfeitures of $521.00 pay
per month for two months and 30 days extra duty.

v. RESPONDENT’S CASE: AB Edwards acknowledged receipt of the Letter of

Notification, dated 7 Dec O01. On 12 Dec 01, ABS submitted a two page personal
statement and a one page character statement from a Tripler Army Medical Center clinical

director. In her response, she details the underlying reasons for her misconduct, and states that
she has made significant improvements and corrected her past problems. AB CRM requests
retention in the Air Force. She did not request P&R.
a 2002-DIE/

discharged for a patlerr of misconduct that tonds to disrupt order, discipline, or morale within the
military community. AB MMi wishes to remain in the Air Force. However, AB RP
has reccived repealed counseling for failing to report for duty on time, being derelict in the
performance of her duties, as well as having a UIF being established. AB PEN only
addresses a few of ihe many incidents that resulted in administrative action against her, in her
letter to <—peay. Meh, insists that in the last four months she has made significant
improvements in her behavior; this is refuted by the fact that AB 4g has been derclict in
her duties in this time frame. Although she states a desire to remain m the military, and to be
piven “one more chance,” the unit fecls that they have given her more than her share of chances.
In the end, her repeated disregard of Air Force standards is firm evidence that AB Qjgggigyp does
not possess the discipline necessary to mamtain a career in the military. It is also evident that
numerous attempts by her unit to use measures designed to correct this misconduct and save her
career have been rejected at every tum by AB @@§R®, until now. Overall, her misconduct has
only served repeatedly to reducc mission effectiveness, and thus, her retention in the Air Force is
not warranted,

5. DISCHARGE CITARACTERIZATION: According to AFI 36-3208, the discharge of
airmen for misconduct, without opportunity for an administrative discharge board hearing, may
be characterized as either Honorable, General (Under Honorable Conditions), or UOTHC. Per
AFI 36-3208, paragraph 1.18.2, an Honorable characterization is warranted when the quality of
an airman’s service generally has met Air Force standards of acceptable conduct and
performance of duly, or when a member’s service is othcrwisc so meritorious that any other
characterization would be mappropriate. A General discharge is appropriate where significant
negative aspects of the airman’s conduct, performance, or duty outweigh the positive aspects of
the airman’s military record. AB MH" numerous incidents of misconduct clearly outweigh
the favorable information contained within her military record. Finally, an UOTHC discharge is
another option; however, it is reserved for behavior that is a significant departure from expected
conduct and allows the respondent to have a board hearing. AFI 36-3208, paragraph 1.18.3, lists
examples of misconduct appropriate for a UOTHC discharge which includes the use of force to
produce bodily injury or death, abuse of a special position, abuse of subordinate relationships,
acts or omissions that endanger the security of the United States, or acts that endanger the health
and safety of others. AB MMI nisconduct, while serious, does not rise to the level of
behavior that would warrant a UOTHC, and therefore, an administrative discharge board is not
walranted. Based upon all of the facts available in AB ae case, a General discharge for a

pattern of misconduct is appropriate.